Hello everybody,
I'm currently porting an application and wanted to use MyFaces ExtVal for
Bean Validation. Our application needs to run under WebSphere Application
Server 8.0.0.4. I'm currently using the following maven dependency within
the WAR project:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.myfaces.extensions.validator.validation-modules</
groupId>
<artifactId>myfaces-extval-bean-validation</artifactId>
<version>2.0.5</version>
<exclusions>
<exclusion>
<artifactId>validation-api</artifactId>
<groupId>javax.validation</groupId>
</exclusion>
</exclusions>
</dependency>
It occured weird to me that I have to exclude the validation API but
WebSphere seems to bring it's own which is somehow incompatible. However
that is not the problem. When deploying the application, I get multiple
messages of the following kind:
[08.10.12 07:44:30:883 CEST] 00000008 visitor W
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.AnnotationInfoDefaultVisitor visitAnnotation [
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.InfoVisitor@1546284787 ] for method [
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.info.impl.MethodInfoImpl@1496780783 (
org.apache.myfaces.extensions.validator.beanval.annotation.BeanValidation.modelValidation
) ] Name [ null ] Description [
Lorg/apache/myfaces/extensions/validator/beanval/annotation/ModelValidation;
] Call in violation of protocol
[08.10.12 07:44:32:836 CEST] 00000008 visitor W
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.AnnotationInfoDefaultVisitor visitAnnotation [
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.InfoVisitor@-16051367 ] for method [
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.info.impl.MethodInfoImpl@1207608866 (
org.apache.myfaces.extensions.validator.beanval.annotation.BeanValidation.modelValidation
) ] Name [ null ] Description [
Lorg/apache/myfaces/extensions/validator/beanval/annotation/ModelValidation;
] Call in violation of protocol
The application itself works fine, as these are only warnings, BUT the
deployment and start process of the application is heavily slowed down. It
seems, WAS does not like something within the validation classes. I've
tried to get some more information about what kind of 'call in validation
of protocol' this might be, but did not find anything. Could this be a bug
within WAS, or is something wrong here within the validation modules.
It would be great if some of the developers can help. If this is a bug
within WAS, I can open a PMR with IBM, but they obviously request some
more information about this and I'm not quite sure what leads to this
problem.
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Heiko
--
Dr.-Ing. Heiko Kopp
If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you
have received this e-mail in error, and delete it. We thank you for your
cooperation.
